0046 PwC

General information

Submitterʼs name
PwC
Submitted on behalf of
Employer

About the submission

Is your organisation an Approved Sponsor for any of the following programs?
  • Temporary Work (Skilled) (Subclass 457) visa program
  • Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186) visa program
  • Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 187) visa program
  • Labour agreements
Yes
Please select the industry your submission is in relation to. If required, you may select multiple industries.
Education and Training
Financial and Insurance Services
Information Media and Telecommunications
Mining
Other Services
Professional, Scientific and Technical
Please identify which occupations your submission relates to:
All 670 occupations

Responses

1. Are there additional labour market factors, for which there are national datasets available (ideally aligned to 6-digit ANZSCO occupation level), that are relevant to future refinements to the Departmentʼs analysis and methodology?

What is the frequency of data release?

We have included a detailed overview in our attached submission document.

We note the Department proposes to rely on the job vacancy data sets that are underpinned by ANZSCO classifications. It is important to note that job vacancies can be advertised using a wide variety of position titles that may not necessarily correlate to the appropriate ANZSCO code. In certain industry sectors, notably recruitment and IT, a high level of industry experience can be required to understand the relevant market. Therefore vacancies are advertised extremely broadly with the intention to attract a greater pool of potential applicants from which to select. This practice could skew vacancy data based on ANZSCO classification alone.

The limitations of the ANZSCO classification system have been widely documented, however it should not be underestimated how ineffective ANZSCO has become as a tool to classify skills needs of the future. This is particularly true for the STEM sector, which Australia is actively looking to encourage through the National Innovation and Science Agenda. STEM occupations are poorly served by ANZSCO, which makes it difficult to accurately track skills needs in this important area. A methodology largely benchmarked to ANZSCO will ultimately not provide a detailed picture of Australia's skills requirements in the STEM space.

2. The Department is also seeking submissions on suitable datasets that are disaggregated by region. Please provide details if you are aware of such a dataset, including whether it is aligned to ANZSCO occupations and how often the dataset is updated.

 

3. Is there any other advice or evidence that the Department should consider in its review of the methodology?

We have included detailed overviews in our attached submission. The following are summaries of some of the recommendations we have put forward:

The Department requires a methodology that allows for capturing new emergent trends, economic changes and technological developments. The methodology should provide an appropriate level of granularity to inform policy decisions, particularly in relation to location-specific skills shortages. We submit the best way for the Department to capture this level of detail in its methodology is through consultation with Skills Service Organisations which are specifically responsible for working with industry to develop meaningful data and provide feedback to government.

Evaluating the skills needed for Australia’s future should not be just about numbers; there are several other qualitative factors in play when it comes to predicting skills required for the future. There will always be gaps in any collection of data sets trying to encapsulate complex issues such as bringing together a demand for, and a supply of, skills at a meaningful level of granularity. A well informed assumption is often much richer than a ‘data driven’ projection of historical data. Ignoring factors outside the pure data sets can lead to a model that is insufficient in assessing the quality and quantity of a skilled workforce.

We understand the Department is charged to review the skilled occupation lists every six months. Given the lag time involved before meaningful information can be drawn from data, in our view six months is too short a period to discern trends and make long term decisions. Whilst we recognise the need for the methodology to be agile as outlined above, our clients have expressed concern about the prospect of a list that is constantly changing which could lead to business uncertainty. We appreciate the proposed traffic light system as a method of flagging changes before they occur, and submit that the Department should go a step further by outlining an overarching framework through which all changes will be considered. As raised above, we would recommend that industries the government is looking to promote (such as STEM and services industries) are specifically considered in this framework to provide certainty to businesses in those industries.
Do you have any supporting material for your submission?
Yes (see attachments)

These files have not been modified and are published as supplied

If you have trouble accessing this document, please contact the Department to request a copy in a format you can use.

Last modified on Friday 10 November 2017 [39036|92411]